Cricket on TV and High Tech Decision Reviews

Watching live cricket on TV has the bonus of sharing the high-tech video analysis tools used by expert commentators. However, this technology raises as many issues as it solves.

But, the introduction of some of this technology in the form of the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) has as many crictics as fans. Here's a some background to the debate.

Hawk Eye

However, the high-tech gadgetry of cricket on TV can help. The Hawk-eye system uses 6 cameras placed around the ground to track the flight of the ball, then a computer instantly converts their pictures into a 3D image of the ball’s flight. It can follow swing, spin and seam, and predict if the ball would have hit the wicket after hitting a batsman’s pad.

This gives the TV commentator and viewer an unfair advantage over the umpire in judging an lbw. But, does this undermine an umpire’s decision which is based on experience that even a computer can’t match? Even Hawk-eye finds it difficult to predict the bounce of a cricket ball, so it may not always be right. So, should Umpires have access to Hawk-eye replays? What do you think? Many more high tech options present the same dilemma.

Aside from this great debate, Hawk-eye has also brought benefits to cricket coaches. It can record exactly where the ball pitches, so can give bowlers feedback on their accuracy. It also measures the speed of the ball, showing how much time a batsman has to react. Because of these benefits, the system has been installed at the ECB Academy in Loughborough, to help analyse batting and bowling techniques.

The Snickometer

Stump cameras and stump microphones have been part of live cricket on TV since the early 1990s. In the mid 1990s, the “snickometer” was devised to use sounds picked up by the stump microphone. The sharp sound of a ball clipping the edge of a bat shows clearly on a graph of sound level. When allied with a slow motion video, this can show clearly if the ball was edged to the wicket keeper, or hit the bat before hitting a pad.

Super Slow Motion

The super slow motion camera takes around 500 frames per second (fps), compared to 24 fps at normal speed. Used since 2005, this is a great tool to analyse run outs and stumpings, and the umpire can refer to these pictures to help with his decisions. But, it’s also good for seeing whether or not the ball took a thin deflection off the bat, though the umpire doesn’t always get this information. Do you think he should?

Hot Spot

The latest technology in the commentator’s armoury is the “hot spot”, first used for cricket on TV by Channel 9 in Australia in 2006. This detects if the ball has connected with a player's bat, pad, glove or the ground, using two infra-red cameras. These detect the tiny amount of heat generated from the friction created when two objects collide, such as ball, bat, pad, glove or the ground. This can show if the ball snicked the bat for a catch, or hit bat before pad to determine an lbw dismissal.

This is better than the snickometer but much more expensive. In an ideal world, each international match would have a "hot spot" system available, but at around £25,000 per camera, the cost is prohibitive. And the issue is, who pays, the TV company or the cricket authorities?

The Choice

Eminent commentators and cricketers are divided on whether technology should replace the umpire’s judgement for borderline decisions. One side’s view is that umpires are a traditional part of the game, and can exercise judgement that technology can not. The other side considers it’s more important to make sure that umpiring decisions are right.

So for now, TV replays are available for international umpires to review line decisions of their choice, and the teams are allowed up to two failed reviews per innings, using whatever other technology is available at the match. Lots of controversy here, and it will only end when all the gadgetry is available.

If the the combined firepower of "Hawkeye", "snickometer", "hotspot" and super slow motion replays were available to all international umpires, they would have the right tools to do a difficult job even better than they do it now. But of course, its not that simple. There is even an element of history repeating itself – the laws of the game were formalised in 1744, in response to increased gambling on the results of matches. So, will the technology of cricket on TV fulfil the same need, in the face of internet betting?

High-tech decision reviews have only been available for around 15 years, and are improving all the time, so that pressure on traditional umpiring can only increase. It’s a great debate for the cricket authorities and for cricket fans. What do you think? Whatever the answer, it brings a dimension to cricket on TV that you won’t see at the match. But is it enough compensation for not “being there”? Well, that’s another debate.

Want more information on live cricket? Why not visit my pages on live cricket scores, televised live cricket coverage, ESPN Sport, live cricket commentary, live cricket streaming and streamed highlights.

Return from Cricket on TV and High Tech Reviews to Live Cricket